Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

[my2¢]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....

The difficulty the police took in assessing the situation and their hit rate of less than 50% plus my lack of faith that amateurs would do any better, makes it look silly that arming citizens is any solution to these mass shootings.

 

[rightwinger]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

So you are a male chauvinist ???

male chau·vin·ism

noun
male prejudice against women; the belief that men are superior in terms of ability, intelligence, etc.

Yes you are. LOL

Yes

What’s your point?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....

The difficulty the police took in assessing the situation and their hit rate of less than 50% plus my lack of faith that amateurs would do any better, makes it look silly that arming citizens is any solution to these mass shootings.

Okay, so let's say you are in a grocery store and a shooter walks in to kill anybody and everybody. You mean to tell me you would rather be with people who are all unarmed than have a few people that are?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

Definitely not a mentally disturbed person that's for sure.

Definitely not a mentally disturbed gamer that's for sure.
A gamer who dives to deep into the game, virtually shutting himself off from the outside world is a potential problem developing right up under our noses. Now this is not to stereo type all gamers, but to say rather that the area may be of some serious concern if any direct links are proven. The problem may evolve over time all due to the time one spends at the controls unrestricted. This creates a separation from the outside world, where as once this happens the human begins to totally transform. The body structure changes, the look changes, and the stress levels highten to unhealthy levels etc.

Once become entrenched in the gamer world, and the addiction forms, then the outside world begins to become non-conformative as the game takes over the entire subject.

Once this happens, there is the possibility of ridicule and corrections that are then attempted by those either close to the individual or from around the outside edges of the individual who come in contact with the individual.

Restrictions and moderation is the key to not losing our society to these things.

A healthy time period must be set for anything our children become involved in.

The idea of no lines drawn, total freedom without guidence, no parenting, no values instilled, no work ethics taught, no examples being set etc, just leaves our youth totally vulnerable to corporate greed that will justify anything going, otherwise if it means billions in sales to their bottom lines.

Maybe game rooms should be formed again outside of the home, where the gamer can only play for the length of time that his or her money holds out ? Otherwise maybe games of a certain rating should be illegal to have in the home ? Otherwise if there is no parenting in the homes, then the kids just can't sit there turning themselves into gamer zombies....

This idea creates moderation, it creates work ethic to get out and mow lawns, sell bottles, and help the elderly again in order to aquire the money to hit the game room for a few hours on the weekend.

Our homes have become saturated with stuff that is child sitting our children while the parents are out working sometimes two jobs a piece, and this they do in order to create some kind of stature that takes them above and beyond the next family that might not have the cool things that they have.... Some are just trying to keep the standards of living up that is to be kept by those wanting to stay ahead of the GAME. Pun intended.

Not sure of all the links, but something is very wrong in our society, and the corporate world isn't helping to sovle it. Maybe bipartisan review panels are needed in order to investigate all that is happening, and then a report made with recommendations added. Wasn't this always the congresses job ??

Sorry...

I don't buy that. I might accept that in some cases it desensitizes some people, but they are fucked up already. The game didn't do it.

I played 1000's of hours of Mario Bros and even if I did eat some strange mushrooms from time to time I never bashed my head on a block looking for them and I never stomped on every turtle I saw and tried to kick it up stairs.


.

As Andrew Klavan at the Dailywire pointed out....it isn't the video game....it is the lack of parental care that allows a kid who is developing a mental illness to lock themselves away with no intervention....... with the millions upon millions of people playing violent video games, less than a handful ever go on to commit mass shootings....

The El Paso shooter came from a broken home, the majority of criminals in prison come from broken homes....the left has made it their goal to separate children from families through government programs...and it worked.....we now have generations of children raised in homes without fathers.....

The increase in mass shootings is proportional with the removal of God from our society. Every survey shows an increasing number of atheists and secularists. When you remove the fear of punishment after life, it's an invitation for people to do harm with impunity. All they do is kill themselves afterwards and in their minds, they got away scot-free.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rights are not dictated by need

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

Would you rather your wife take him on with no rounds?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

Definitely not a mentally disturbed person that's for sure.

Definitely not a mentally disturbed gamer that's for sure.
A gamer who dives to deep into the game, virtually shutting himself off from the outside world is a potential problem developing right up under our noses. Now this is not to stereo type all gamers, but to say rather that the area may be of some serious concern if any direct links are proven. The problem may evolve over time all due to the time one spends at the controls unrestricted. This creates a separation from the outside world, where as once this happens the human begins to totally transform. The body structure changes, the look changes, and the stress levels highten to unhealthy levels etc.

Once become entrenched in the gamer world, and the addiction forms, then the outside world begins to become non-conformative as the game takes over the entire subject.

Once this happens, there is the possibility of ridicule and corrections that are then attempted by those either close to the individual or from around the outside edges of the individual who come in contact with the individual.

Restrictions and moderation is the key to not losing our society to these things.

A healthy time period must be set for anything our children become involved in.

The idea of no lines drawn, total freedom without guidence, no parenting, no values instilled, no work ethics taught, no examples being set etc, just leaves our youth totally vulnerable to corporate greed that will justify anything going, otherwise if it means billions in sales to their bottom lines.

Maybe game rooms should be formed again outside of the home, where the gamer can only play for the length of time that his or her money holds out ? Otherwise maybe games of a certain rating should be illegal to have in the home ? Otherwise if there is no parenting in the homes, then the kids just can't sit there turning themselves into gamer zombies....

This idea creates moderation, it creates work ethic to get out and mow lawns, sell bottles, and help the elderly again in order to aquire the money to hit the game room for a few hours on the weekend.

Our homes have become saturated with stuff that is child sitting our children while the parents are out working sometimes two jobs a piece, and this they do in order to create some kind of stature that takes them above and beyond the next family that might not have the cool things that they have.... Some are just trying to keep the standards of living up that is to be kept by those wanting to stay ahead of the GAME. Pun intended.

Not sure of all the links, but something is very wrong in our society, and the corporate world isn't helping to sovle it. Maybe bipartisan review panels are needed in order to investigate all that is happening, and then a report made with recommendations added. Wasn't this always the congresses job ??

Games may be a reason some go out on a shooting spree, but if not for games, something else would eventually set them off.

Getting rid of video games thinking that will be the solution to mass shootings is like getting rid of alcohol believing it will stop people from getting drunk and crashing their car into somebody else. The closest we can get to a solution is to lock these people up before they commit the crime, however that's in violation of our Constitution and certainly would be challenged by the ACLU.

 

[beagle9]

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

Definitely not a mentally disturbed person that's for sure.

Definitely not a mentally disturbed gamer that's for sure.
A gamer who dives to deep into the game, virtually shutting himself off from the outside world is a potential problem developing right up under our noses. Now this is not to stereo type all gamers, but to say rather that the area may be of some serious concern if any direct links are proven. The problem may evolve over time all due to the time one spends at the controls unrestricted. This creates a separation from the outside world, where as once this happens the human begins to totally transform. The body structure changes, the look changes, and the stress levels highten to unhealthy levels etc.

Once become entrenched in the gamer world, and the addiction forms, then the outside world begins to become non-conformative as the game takes over the entire subject.

Once this happens, there is the possibility of ridicule and corrections that are then attempted by those either close to the individual or from around the outside edges of the individual who come in contact with the individual.

Restrictions and moderation is the key to not losing our society to these things.

A healthy time period must be set for anything our children become involved in.

The idea of no lines drawn, total freedom without guidence, no parenting, no values instilled, no work ethics taught, no examples being set etc, just leaves our youth totally vulnerable to corporate greed that will justify anything going, otherwise if it means billions in sales to their bottom lines.

Maybe game rooms should be formed again outside of the home, where the gamer can only play for the length of time that his or her money holds out ? Otherwise maybe games of a certain rating should be illegal to have in the home ? Otherwise if there is no parenting in the homes, then the kids just can't sit there turning themselves into gamer zombies....

This idea creates moderation, it creates work ethic to get out and mow lawns, sell bottles, and help the elderly again in order to aquire the money to hit the game room for a few hours on the weekend.

Our homes have become saturated with stuff that is child sitting our children while the parents are out working sometimes two jobs a piece, and this they do in order to create some kind of stature that takes them above and beyond the next family that might not have the cool things that they have.... Some are just trying to keep the standards of living up that is to be kept by those wanting to stay ahead of the GAME. Pun intended.

Not sure of all the links, but something is very wrong in our society, and the corporate world isn't helping to sovle it. Maybe bipartisan review panels are needed in order to investigate all that is happening, and then a report made with recommendations added. Wasn't this always the congresses job ??

Sorry...

I don't buy that. I might accept that in some cases it desensitizes some people, but they are fucked up already. The game didn't do it.

I played 1000's of hours of Mario Bros and even if I did eat some strange mushrooms from time to time I never bashed my head on a block looking for them and I never stomped on every turtle I saw and tried to kick it up stairs.


.

Uh I said not to stereo type all gamers, but to consider of course that a link might be present among those who commit acts of terror as with the ones we are experiencing by these home grown terrorist to date. Their age is of course suspect coupled with their creation of a shoot situation that exist inside the games if so chooses to look at it in this way. Hey investigating if 2+2+2 = 6 is never a bad thing. Ignoring the results of the investigation by saying no it equals 5 then we have a huge problem on our hands.

 

[Andylusion]

If the military and police have 100 rounds of ammo, and we don't, we will rue the day.

Where were all those gun supporters when the government passed the Patriot Act?

The patriot act is not one giant monolithic thing. Parts of it I supported, and parts I opposed.

 

[beagle9]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

Definitely not a mentally disturbed person that's for sure.

Definitely not a mentally disturbed gamer that's for sure.
A gamer who dives to deep into the game, virtually shutting himself off from the outside world is a potential problem developing right up under our noses. Now this is not to stereo type all gamers, but to say rather that the area may be of some serious concern if any direct links are proven. The problem may evolve over time all due to the time one spends at the controls unrestricted. This creates a separation from the outside world, where as once this happens the human begins to totally transform. The body structure changes, the look changes, and the stress levels highten to unhealthy levels etc.

Once become entrenched in the gamer world, and the addiction forms, then the outside world begins to become non-conformative as the game takes over the entire subject.

Once this happens, there is the possibility of ridicule and corrections that are then attempted by those either close to the individual or from around the outside edges of the individual who come in contact with the individual.

Restrictions and moderation is the key to not losing our society to these things.

A healthy time period must be set for anything our children become involved in.

The idea of no lines drawn, total freedom without guidence, no parenting, no values instilled, no work ethics taught, no examples being set etc, just leaves our youth totally vulnerable to corporate greed that will justify anything going, otherwise if it means billions in sales to their bottom lines.

Maybe game rooms should be formed again outside of the home, where the gamer can only play for the length of time that his or her money holds out ? Otherwise maybe games of a certain rating should be illegal to have in the home ? Otherwise if there is no parenting in the homes, then the kids just can't sit there turning themselves into gamer zombies....

This idea creates moderation, it creates work ethic to get out and mow lawns, sell bottles, and help the elderly again in order to aquire the money to hit the game room for a few hours on the weekend.

Our homes have become saturated with stuff that is child sitting our children while the parents are out working sometimes two jobs a piece, and this they do in order to create some kind of stature that takes them above and beyond the next family that might not have the cool things that they have.... Some are just trying to keep the standards of living up that is to be kept by those wanting to stay ahead of the GAME. Pun intended.

Not sure of all the links, but something is very wrong in our society, and the corporate world isn't helping to sovle it. Maybe bipartisan review panels are needed in order to investigate all that is happening, and then a report made with recommendations added. Wasn't this always the congresses job ??

Games may be a reason some go out on a shooting spree, but if not for games, something else would eventually set them off.

Getting rid of video games thinking that will be the solution to mass shootings is like getting rid of alcohol believing it will stop people from getting drunk and crashing their car into somebody else. The closest we can get to a solution is to lock these people up before they commit the crime, however that's in violation of our Constitution and certainly would be challenged by the ACLU.

Slow down.... Not saying get rid of games as they have a place, but maybe to put them into a safer more manageable area as not to have young people in unrestricted homes being indoctronated or forming unhealthy addictions to these things, otherwise in which then leads them to surprise society out of no where, and taking the lives of our loved ones as a result of.

 

[beagle9]

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

Definitely not a mentally disturbed person that's for sure.

Definitely not a mentally disturbed gamer that's for sure.
A gamer who dives to deep into the game, virtually shutting himself off from the outside world is a potential problem developing right up under our noses. Now this is not to stereo type all gamers, but to say rather that the area may be of some serious concern if any direct links are proven. The problem may evolve over time all due to the time one spends at the controls unrestricted. This creates a separation from the outside world, where as once this happens the human begins to totally transform. The body structure changes, the look changes, and the stress levels highten to unhealthy levels etc.

Once become entrenched in the gamer world, and the addiction forms, then the outside world begins to become non-conformative as the game takes over the entire subject.

Once this happens, there is the possibility of ridicule and corrections that are then attempted by those either close to the individual or from around the outside edges of the individual who come in contact with the individual.

Restrictions and moderation is the key to not losing our society to these things.

A healthy time period must be set for anything our children become involved in.

The idea of no lines drawn, total freedom without guidence, no parenting, no values instilled, no work ethics taught, no examples being set etc, just leaves our youth totally vulnerable to corporate greed that will justify anything going, otherwise if it means billions in sales to their bottom lines.

Maybe game rooms should be formed again outside of the home, where the gamer can only play for the length of time that his or her money holds out ? Otherwise maybe games of a certain rating should be illegal to have in the home ? Otherwise if there is no parenting in the homes, then the kids just can't sit there turning themselves into gamer zombies....

This idea creates moderation, it creates work ethic to get out and mow lawns, sell bottles, and help the elderly again in order to aquire the money to hit the game room for a few hours on the weekend.

Our homes have become saturated with stuff that is child sitting our children while the parents are out working sometimes two jobs a piece, and this they do in order to create some kind of stature that takes them above and beyond the next family that might not have the cool things that they have.... Some are just trying to keep the standards of living up that is to be kept by those wanting to stay ahead of the GAME. Pun intended.

Not sure of all the links, but something is very wrong in our society, and the corporate world isn't helping to sovle it. Maybe bipartisan review panels are needed in order to investigate all that is happening, and then a report made with recommendations added. Wasn't this always the congresses job ??

Sorry...

I don't buy that. I might accept that in some cases it desensitizes some people, but they are fucked up already. The game didn't do it.

I played 1000's of hours of Mario Bros and even if I did eat some strange mushrooms from time to time I never bashed my head on a block looking for them and I never stomped on every turtle I saw and tried to kick it up stairs.


.

As Andrew Klavan at the Dailywire pointed out....it isn't the video game....it is the lack of parental care that allows a kid who is developing a mental illness to lock themselves away with no intervention....... with the millions upon millions of people playing violent video games, less than a handful ever go on to commit mass shootings....

The El Paso shooter came from a broken home, the majority of criminals in prison come from broken homes....the left has made it their goal to separate children from families through government programs...and it worked.....we now have generations of children raised in homes without fathers.....

If a link is present, then studies should be conducted, and solutions developed. Ignoring such things being possibly a part of it is idiotic and dangerous. Put games back into game rooms where they belong, and this way they are regulated by ones allowances given or worked for, and a time stamp given due the closure of the game room on a daily basis. For example Game Room opened from 3:00 to 6:00 weekdays, and 11:00 to 8:00 on Saturdays, closed on Sundays.

 

[Andylusion]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

Absolutely.

You don't seem to understand much about the criminal mind. Most criminals are total cowards on the inside. In fact, it's part of their motivation for doing their crimes. They want to feel like they are not afraid, and so they need to inflect themselves on others. Gives them this power-feeling that negates their cowardice.

But the moment an armed citizen confronts one of these power-tripping cowards, they all usually back down.

Clackamas Mall Shooting is a perfect example. The man Nick Meli pulled his conceal and carry pistol, and aimed it at the shooter who was armed with a AR-15. So we have a guy with a Glock 22, confronting a man with a AR-15. You are acting like the size of the gun, or the total number of bullets matters.

Nick Meli didn't even fire his weapon. The shooter just upon seeing him, backed down. We are not entirely sure what happened, but we think the shooter killed himself after seeing an armed citizen.

Now obviously I want my wife to have as much ammunition as she needs. But yes, the answer to your question is, yeah I want her to be armed.

Because when you say "tell her to take on a guy with...."..... That is ridiculous. No one *wants* their wife to have to take on anyone. The problem is, it isn't up to us, or her. You don't know when you will be caught in a situation with a shooter.

I was reading about a pizza delivery driver who on delivering a pizza, was attacked and pin to the ground by a guy who started removing her clothes to rape her. She pulled a pistol she had on her, and shot the guy. Did her husband "tell her to go take on" this guy? No. Of course not. But she didn't have a choice in the matter.

The sick part of that story, is that the company fired the woman for violating their no-gun rules. Left-wing ideology at work. Punish the innocent, and reward the criminals.

Better she was armed, and able to shoot the attacker.



This is the reality of armed criminals.

4 or 5 guys, all armed with guns, break into this couples house. The lady comes out with a pistol, and starts shooting them. They don't get angry, and fight her. They all scatter like rats. If I remember the story right, she shot two of them. Can't remember if either died from their injuries.

 

[beagle9]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

Absolutely.

You don't seem to understand much about the criminal mind. Most criminals are total cowards on the inside. In fact, it's part of their motivation for doing their crimes. They want to feel like they are not afraid, and so they need to inflect themselves on others. Gives them this power-feeling that negates their cowardice.

But the moment an armed citizen confronts one of these power-tripping cowards, they all usually back down.

Clackamas Mall Shooting is a perfect example. The man Nick Meli pulled his conceal and carry pistol, and aimed it at the shooter who was armed with a AR-15. So we have a guy with a Glock 22, confronting a man with a AR-15. You are acting like the size of the gun, or the total number of bullets matters.

Nick Meli didn't even fire his weapon. The shooter just upon seeing him, backed down. We are not entirely sure what happened, but we think the shooter killed himself after seeing an armed citizen.

Now obviously I want my wife to have as much ammunition as she needs. But yes, the answer to your question is, yeah I want her to be armed.

Because when you say "tell her to take on a guy with...."..... That is ridiculous. No one *wants* their wife to have to take on anyone. The problem is, it isn't up to us, or her. You don't know when you will be caught in a situation with a shooter.

I was reading about a pizza delivery driver who on delivering a pizza, was attacked and pin to the ground by a guy who started removing her clothes to rape her. She pulled a pistol she had on her, and shot the guy. Did her husband "tell her to go take on" this guy? No. Of course not. But she didn't have a choice in the matter.

The sick part of that story, is that the company fired the woman for violating their no-gun rules. Left-wing ideology at work. Punish the innocent, and reward the criminals.

Better she was armed, and able to shoot the attacker.



This is the reality of armed criminals.

4 or 5 guys, all armed with guns, break into this couples house. The lady comes out with a pistol, and starts shooting them. They don't get angry, and fight her. They all scatter like rats. If I remember the story right, she shot two of them. Can't remember if either died from their injuries.

The left knows all this to be true, but they can't use any of it for their attacks on their political enemies.

 

[debbiedowner]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

So what you're saying is authorities only needs 100 rounds of ammo? I agree with that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

Absolutely.

You don't seem to understand much about the criminal mind. Most criminals are total cowards on the inside. In fact, it's part of their motivation for doing their crimes. They want to feel like they are not afraid, and so they need to inflect themselves on others. Gives them this power-feeling that negates their cowardice.

But the moment an armed citizen confronts one of these power-tripping cowards, they all usually back down.

Clackamas Mall Shooting is a perfect example. The man Nick Meli pulled his conceal and carry pistol, and aimed it at the shooter who was armed with a AR-15. So we have a guy with a Glock 22, confronting a man with a AR-15. You are acting like the size of the gun, or the total number of bullets matters.

Nick Meli didn't even fire his weapon. The shooter just upon seeing him, backed down. We are not entirely sure what happened, but we think the shooter killed himself after seeing an armed citizen.

Now obviously I want my wife to have as much ammunition as she needs. But yes, the answer to your question is, yeah I want her to be armed.

Because when you say "tell her to take on a guy with...."..... That is ridiculous. No one *wants* their wife to have to take on anyone. The problem is, it isn't up to us, or her. You don't know when you will be caught in a situation with a shooter.

I was reading about a pizza delivery driver who on delivering a pizza, was attacked and pin to the ground by a guy who started removing her clothes to rape her. She pulled a pistol she had on her, and shot the guy. Did her husband "tell her to go take on" this guy? No. Of course not. But she didn't have a choice in the matter.

The sick part of that story, is that the company fired the woman for violating their no-gun rules. Left-wing ideology at work. Punish the innocent, and reward the criminals.

Better she was armed, and able to shoot the attacker.



This is the reality of armed criminals.

4 or 5 guys, all armed with guns, break into this couples house. The lady comes out with a pistol, and starts shooting them. They don't get angry, and fight her. They all scatter like rats. If I remember the story right, she shot two of them. Can't remember if either died from their injuries.

The reason employers don't want employees carrying firearms is because of the liability issue which is something the Republicans should have addressed while in leadership of Congress.

Before the Castle Doctrine, you used to be liable if you shot an intruder in your own home in our state. There was also an escape law you had to follow. If you shot somebody instead of using a door or window to retreat, you were in trouble for that.

If you were trapped and did use your firearm for protection, the intruder could sue you for inquires, and if fatal, his family could sue you instead. The Castle Doctrine removed the duty to retreat and also removed any liability.

However CCW laws are different. If I shot or killed somebody outside of my home, and it was found totally justified, I can still get sued for injuries or death even though perfectly legal. This law doesn't just apply to citizens, it applies to police officers as well. IMO, any justified shooting should remove all liability of the shooter.

So I think more employers would be likely to allow their employees to be armed if our legislators removed that liability.

 

[JoeMoma]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

I really wanted to use the emoji.

That being said, if she finds herself having to take on a guy with an AK-47, I want her to have all the fire power she needs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many people remember when NYC cops fired 41 rounds at Amadou Diallo?

A man who fired NO ROUNDS.

They hit him 19 times, less that a 50% hit rate because they were scared of a black guy with a wallet.

Now tell me if you are ever in a gunfight while police are just minutes away that 100 rounds is enough when you're faced with one or more armed thugs that don't limit their magazines or ammo because of some law.

You libturds really need to just SHUT THE **** UP when it comes to issues you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.....

Which is just about every issue....



.

Who needs 100 rounds of ammo?

Definitely not a mentally disturbed person that's for sure.

Definitely not a mentally disturbed gamer that's for sure.
A gamer who dives to deep into the game, virtually shutting himself off from the outside world is a potential problem developing right up under our noses. Now this is not to stereo type all gamers, but to say rather that the area may be of some serious concern if any direct links are proven. The problem may evolve over time all due to the time one spends at the controls unrestricted. This creates a separation from the outside world, where as once this happens the human begins to totally transform. The body structure changes, the look changes, and the stress levels highten to unhealthy levels etc.

Once become entrenched in the gamer world, and the addiction forms, then the outside world begins to become non-conformative as the game takes over the entire subject.

Once this happens, there is the possibility of ridicule and corrections that are then attempted by those either close to the individual or from around the outside edges of the individual who come in contact with the individual.

Restrictions and moderation is the key to not losing our society to these things.

A healthy time period must be set for anything our children become involved in.

The idea of no lines drawn, total freedom without guidence, no parenting, no values instilled, no work ethics taught, no examples being set etc, just leaves our youth totally vulnerable to corporate greed that will justify anything going, otherwise if it means billions in sales to their bottom lines.

Maybe game rooms should be formed again outside of the home, where the gamer can only play for the length of time that his or her money holds out ? Otherwise maybe games of a certain rating should be illegal to have in the home ? Otherwise if there is no parenting in the homes, then the kids just can't sit there turning themselves into gamer zombies....

This idea creates moderation, it creates work ethic to get out and mow lawns, sell bottles, and help the elderly again in order to aquire the money to hit the game room for a few hours on the weekend.

Our homes have become saturated with stuff that is child sitting our children while the parents are out working sometimes two jobs a piece, and this they do in order to create some kind of stature that takes them above and beyond the next family that might not have the cool things that they have.... Some are just trying to keep the standards of living up that is to be kept by those wanting to stay ahead of the GAME. Pun intended.

Not sure of all the links, but something is very wrong in our society, and the corporate world isn't helping to sovle it. Maybe bipartisan review panels are needed in order to investigate all that is happening, and then a report made with recommendations added. Wasn't this always the congresses job ??

Games may be a reason some go out on a shooting spree, but if not for games, something else would eventually set them off.

Getting rid of video games thinking that will be the solution to mass shootings is like getting rid of alcohol believing it will stop people from getting drunk and crashing their car into somebody else. The closest we can get to a solution is to lock these people up before they commit the crime, however that's in violation of our Constitution and certainly would be challenged by the ACLU.

Slow down.... Not saying get rid of games as they have a place, but maybe to put them into a safer more manageable area as not to have young people in unrestricted homes being indoctronated or forming unhealthy addictions to these things, otherwise in which then leads them to surprise society out of no where, and taking the lives of our loved ones as a result of.

The question is if that's what we really want to do?

In the past when there was a violent situation, people were placing the blame at the feet of rock-n-roll, particularly heavy metal. After that, the blame was placed on rap music. In later situations, it was blamed on violent television programs and movies.

So if we went down that path, today we would have no rock-n-roll, only G rated movies and shows, no rap music, and now no video games, and likely, it wouldn't stop one mass shooter.

In the most recent shootings, the left are now blaming what politicians say. So do we also remove political content and discourse so these potential violent people are not exposed to it?

The problem with creating such laws is once they are in place and we find failure, it's nearly impossible to reverse them.

 

[rightwinger]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

I really wanted to use the emoji.

That being said, if she finds herself having to take on a guy with an AK-47, I want her to have all the fire power she needs.

I would tell her to run away

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

I really wanted to use the emoji.

That being said, if she finds herself having to take on a guy with an AK-47, I want her to have all the fire power she needs.

I would tell her to run away

Right, a guy with an AK could never shoot her if she was running away.

 

[JoeMoma]

Raise your hand if you are going to give your wife 100 rounds of ammunition and tell her to take on a guy with an AK-47

I really wanted to use the emoji.

That being said, if she finds herself having to take on a guy with an AK-47, I want her to have all the fire power she needs.

I would tell her to run away

Okay, consider it done.